BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
=============
I live in NYC, and if I want, I can travel to California without
getting anyones permission, or carrying papers, and having to bribe
border guards to let me pass. It is trully amazing.
==============

Well, I don't know about amazing. If you and I want to visit (I'm in
Canada), we'd both have to wait in infernal lines at the border and
be
subjected to interrogation by boder officials. Our friends in Europe
can travel from, say, Germany, to Holland, to France, to Spain, and
NEVER have to stop at the border. That, to me, is more amazing.

I'm glad to meet another Canadian neighbor. I would love to travel up
there to visit, all the pictures are so pretty. The lines do sound like
a hassel though, so are you infavor of a North American Union? Where we
could freely travel without any border stops from Halifax to Chiapas.
Sounds interesting to me! A few details to work out.


You may have thought my response to comrade Weiser was funny, but he
truly did nicely articulate some socialist truths. Very clearly,
governments, representing the people, have to make some decisions
deemed to be in the strategic interests of the nation. Scott happens
to
think corporate welfare to agri-business constitutes such a strategic
interest. I don't know. Only the people of America can be the judge
of
that.

However, I challenge all right-wingers who are of like mind (that is,
agree with Scott) to consider that nations which they consider to be
"socialist" may have made similar, democratic and strategic choices.

They may have decided that it is in the nation's strategic interest
to
have an educated populace. Consequently they may fund free schools
and
universities in a strategic interest. I do not consider it far
fetched
for a people to decide that it is in their strategic interests to
have
a healthy populace -- and to fund medical care. Other nations see the
ability of people to travel with ease as a strategic interest -- and
fund public transit.

Look, if THE PEOPLE choose to fund a variety of activities, that is a
democratic choice. I think it matters little what you call it. Call
it
socialism if that pleases you.

Me, I'd rather pay welfare to the poor that welfare to corporations.
I'm hoping my fellow citizens agree with me.

We each have to decide what is in our strategic interest, and it is not
always the same. You in Canada have your concerns. You have mentioned
agri-business on a number of ocassions, as if it is a specific issue
with you. I am not totally aware of the related issues, but my in-laws
have a sugar beet farm in Minnesota. They struggle to stay independent
when many of the large corporate farms are taking over small farms one
after the other. They did not take any gov money to farm, so are not in
debt. but still feel the pressure of free enterprise (?) The biggest
effect they feel, is the price of sugar on the world markets. So now
their land sets fallow, couldn't afford the fuel to run the tractors,
or the seed to plant. Brother-in-law works on corporate farm, and self
employed. That was what was strategic for them. TnT

Cheers,
frtzw906